MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Finance
Seventy-second Session
April 10, 2003
The Senate Committee on Finance was called to order by Chairman William J. Raggio at 4:08 p.m. on Thursday, April 10, 2003, in Room 2134 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4412, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
Senator Dean A. Rhoads
Senator Barbara K. Cegavske
Senator Sandra J. Tiffany
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Bernice Mathews
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Vice Chairman (Excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Maurice E. Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 2
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst
Denise Davis, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Colleen Dowd, Administrator, New Horizons Academy
Judy Smith
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum
V. Robert Payant, Executive Director, Nevada Catholic Conference
Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education
Craig Kadlub, Lobbyist, Director, Public Affairs, Clark County School District
Frank Brusa, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Administrators, Clark County Association of School Administrators
Doug Whitener, Director, Student Support Services, Washoe County School District
Deborah K. Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association
Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association
Daniel Tafoya, Lobbyist, Community College of Southern Nevada
Bonnie L. Parnell, Lobbyist, League of Women Voters Nevada, Nevada PTA
Dorothy L. Merrill, Lobbyist, Senior Director, Public Policy, Accountability and Assessment, Washoe County School District
Randy Robison, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards
Senator Raggio:
Will staff explain the letters that have been distributed?
Gary L. Ghiggeri, Senate Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
The memorandum from John P. Comeaux dated April 10, 2003 (Exhibit C) states the Executive Branch will not be recommending any adjusted funding for agency budgets as a result of the increase in airfare between Reno and Las Vegas, based on the State’s financial circumstances and the belief that some financial efficiencies might be realized.
The second handout (Exhibit D) is a letter from Senator Raggio to the administrator of the Division of Health addressing the committee’s concerns about the x-ray machines at airports.
Senator Raggio:
This was in response to Senator Mathews’ concerns. Copies will be sent to the airports in Reno and Las Vegas.
Senator Mathews:
Returning to Mr. Comeaux’s memo, does this mean people have to pay the difference in price out of their own pockets?
Mr. Ghiggeri:
No, it means the budgets will not be augmented; agencies will have to operate with less funding. Mr. Comeaux is hoping there might be additional consideration before trips are taken.
Senator Mathews:
If we have a special session, will people be able to get to Carson City?
Senator Raggio:
We will open the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 340.
SENATE BILL 340: Provides in skeleton form for scholarships to pupils with disabilities who attend private schools. (BDR 34-45)
Senator Cegavske:
My remarks are included in my statement (Exhibit E). This bill addresses scholarships for pupils with disabilities; it is based on the McKay scholarship program in Florida. The bill offers an important option for parents of special education students who are not progressing in a public school setting. To be eligible for a scholarship, the student must have an individualized education program and have been enrolled in a public school the previous year. The private school must be located in Nevada. The amount of the scholarship is the per‑pupil amount recognized by the Legislature in the county in which the pupil resides or the private school’s tuition, whichever is less. As a condition of continuing the scholarship, the pupil must remain in good standing at the private school; if he or she fails to do so, the scholarship is forfeited. The bill makes it clear that accepting students on State scholarships will not subject the private school to oversight by Nevada’s Department of Education except as is necessary to ensure compliance with the terms of the bill.
I have a recommendation for two amendments to S.B. 340. In Section 1, subsection 1, replace “who is dissatisfied…to that program” with “where services can be provided.” At the end of subsection 1, after “private school” add “for the purpose of teaching children who have special needs.” The Legal Division may have to adjust the language a bit. Some people are worried about the term “private school”; this will specify that the school has the ability to take care of the needs of these children.
Senator Raggio:
Please prepare a written amendment for us.
Senator Cegavske:
I will. I encourage you to explore the McKay scholarship web site.
Senator Coffin:
I think the Senator’s suggestions focus the bill. At this point, you could have a private school hire a special education teacher, then have an unlimited number of students qualify for special education. Senator Cegavske and I have discussed language stipulating the school is specifically equipped or specializes in special education.
Colleen Dowd, Administrator, New Horizons Academy:
There are effective alternatives available to students with learning differences. Since 1973, we have been offering an alternative educational program for students with processing or focusing issues who have problems learning in a traditional setting. We offer students small classes, with one teacher for every seven students; all teachers are licensed by the State as special education teachers. We create a personalized educational program for each student and use a multisensory approach to meet the needs of every child. We are very effective with students and proud of them. For each year a student is with us, we generally find a 1-year growth in reading and language and a 1.5‑year growth in math. We recently learned 100 percent of the students in our high school who took the writing proficiency test passed.
All these students came to us because they were not succeeding in public school settings. There are alternatives. Our school recently received a letter (Exhibit F) from a mother who enrolled her son in a public high school this last year. After several years at New Horizons Academy, he is doing well in the public system. Our goal is to take students in, provide them with support, and teach them educational techniques and strategies to be successful in whatever setting their parents choose.
Senator Raggio:
I am familiar with your school; it is a fine program. How many students do you have?
Dr. Dowd:
We currently have 105 students.
Senator Raggio:
How long has the school been in operation?
Dr. Dowd:
The school has been in operation since 1973; it has been licensed by the State as a private school since 1974.
Judy Smith:
I agree with Dr. Dowd’s comments.
Senator Tiffany:
Returning to the pilot program in Florida, was only one county chosen to try the program? If so, which county, and what is its student population?
Senator Cegavske:
The pilot program was conducted in Sarasota County. I do not know the student population. The report indicates almost 1000 students participated in 2000-2001.
Senator Tiffany:
Were 1000 students involved in the pilot project? Are 5000 students being served now throughout Florida?
Senator Cegavske:
There are now 5000 students involved.
Senator Tiffany:
Was the program expanded to the entire state after 1 year of the pilot program?
Senator Cegavske:
Yes.
Senator Tiffany:
I assume Florida’s student population is significantly larger than Nevada’s.
Senator Cegavske:
Yes, it is.
Senator Tiffany:
The fiscal note calculations are based on 3 percent of the eligible special education students participating; I am wondering if it is a bit high. If Florida has 5000 students participating from a larger population base, I wonder where we came up with 3 percent.
Senator Cegavske:
I was also surprised by the numbers submitted by each school district.
Senator Tiffany:
I would like to know what percentage 5000 students is of Florida’s total student population because it would be a good indicator of what we should use for our fiscal note.
I have another question regarding disability. One of my constituents has a daughter with learning problems, especially with reading. At school, aides were assigned to help her, but she did not progress. Would she be considered disabled and eligible to go to a private school since her disability was identified but she did not progress, even with assistance?
Senator Cegavske:
Did she have an evaluation?
Senator Tiffany:
Yes.
Senator Cegavske:
Under current law, she would be eligible to receive special education funding in the public school only. With this legislation, she would be eligible to move to a private school.
Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada Eagle Forum:
We enthusiastically support S.B. 340. If we care about educating children, we must cultivate diverse educational opportunities to address their individual needs. I have read about the successes in Florida and I think it would be wonderful if we could transfer them here. I think we would ultimately be saving money because we would be helping these children to be successful long term. We have a long-standing policy of promoting choice in education; we feel this is an opportunity that would benefit Nevada.
V. Robert Payant, Executive Director, Nevada Catholic Conference:
I am speaking in favor of S.B. 340. Both Catholic dioceses in Nevada have schools; we have a total of 2 high schools and 14 elementary schools in the state. Over 6000 students attend our schools. I do not know if this bill would have any particular reference to the services that could be offered by the Catholic schools in Nevada, but it is a possibility. In any event, we think this opportunity for family choice is important, and for that reason we support this bill.
Senator Raggio:
I think the suggested amendment specifies the school will be able to provide services to children with special needs.
Senator Coffin:
Does either of the dioceses have a school specializing in the needs of challenged students?
Mr. Payant:
No, neither of them does.
Senator Raggio:
Is the fiscal note based on loss of revenue because per-pupil support would be transferred to the private schools?
Keith Rheault, Deputy Superintendent for Instructional, Research, and Evaluative Services, Department of Education:
There are over 42,000 special education students in Nevada this year. I assumed 3 percent would be a reasonable estimate of parents dissatisfied with the progress their child is making, which is the basis for the 1276 scholarships in the fiscal note. The rest of the calculations are explained in the fiscal note. To my knowledge, New Horizons Academy is one of the few, if not the only, licensed private schools in the state that can provide services for special education students. There is no way the current capacity in the state could handle 1200 students; I am not sure it could handle 200 to 300. I do not know whether the bill hopes new private schools will open to deal with the additional students; at this point, my $6 million estimate is much higher than the number that can be accommodated in the next biennium. I would be very surprised if 300 kids could move to private schools since New Horizons is the only school available.
We included an accounting staff position with this 3 percent estimate because 1200 individual warrants would be issued on a quarterly basis. Since this number of students cannot currently be accommodated, the fiscal note could be reduced for this biennium because the position will not be needed and the actual number of students will be much less.
Senator Raggio:
Is loss of revenue truly a fiscal note? If the student is not in public school, the district does not get the money.
Dr. Rheault:
Since the bill specifies the child had to be a student the previous year, the district received money for that child. If this bill allows them to leave the system but take the money with them, to me it is a loss of revenue.
Craig Kadlub, Lobbyist, Director, Public Affairs, Clark County School District:
The district is opposed to S.B. 340 for several reasons. We are aware of no private schools in Nevada licensed to provide special education services. There is a distinction between a licensed private school and licensed teachers.
Senator Raggio:
Is New Horizons Academy not licensed?
Dr. Kadlub:
It may be licensed as a private school, but it is my understanding there are no schools in Nevada licensed to provide special education services. Therefore, leaving the public school system and entering a private school at this time could only result in a child receiving services that are not compliant with state and federal law. If the quality of special education service to children is important, then the public school remains the best place for those children to be served.
We also oppose the bill because the district provides special education services to pupils who attend private schools. We are currently serving approximately 135 private school children in Clark County. Since we are already providing services for private school students, we question why special education students will be singled out from all other students and allowed to use tax dollars as vouchers for tuition at private schools which are exempt from most of the standards and regulations governing public schools. Our position has been, and continues to be, that public dollars should be expended on public education.
If there is a group of special education parents who feel passionately about the issue, Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 386 already allows for the creation of charter schools dedicated to serving special education students. This will accomplish the goal of allowing the per-pupil allocation to support special education outside the traditional system without compromising state standards or raising the question of use of tax dollars. The statute also permits an existing private school to close and reopen as a charter school, which would enable it to receive a proportionate share of funding, including special education funds, for all pupils served. Currently, any family can send their children to private school and the public system will provide special education services. Passage of this bill will simply divert per-pupil allocations to private school tuition, which we believe is a misapplication of public funds.
Senator Raggio:
If a parent is truly dissatisfied with their child’s progress, you say he or she has the option to form a charter school. In reality, that is not a practical option. What recourse do parents have if their child is in a program in the district and they are dissatisfied with their child’s progress? What alternatives do they have?
Dr. Kadlub:
In the public system, the first thing to do is exhaust the appeals process if they feel the conditions of the individualized education program are not being met.
Senator Raggio:
I assume they have done that. We are talking about children who need to move along; they have a disability and need to make progress. I am not making light of what you say, but it is not much of an answer to say they can go through an appeals process or form a charter school. Speaking practically, what can a parent in that situation do, in a quick and efficient way, to get something changed?
Dr. Kadlub:
First, our board of trustees has taken a position in opposition to vouchers. With respect to your specific question, the options available to a special education parent are basically the same as those of any parent.
Senator Raggio:
Would they have the choice of another school?
Dr. Kadlub:
Not with the tuition voucher. Special education parents have the same options all parents have. If you feel you have run the gamut of choices in the public system and you make the decision to leave it, along with that decision you leave behind some of the public benefits and incur some costs on your own.
Senator Raggio:
These are tough situations; these parents have enough problems raising a child with disabilities. Could you transfer them to another school in the district with a better program? How do they get there?
Dr. Kadlub:
Yes, that situation happens and transportation is provided.
Senator Coffin:
Is anyone here from your special education division?
Dr. Kadlub:
No.
Senator Coffin:
I have been through this experience with a constituent who attempted to find a program that would assist a public school student in special education; the Clark County School District said such a program was not available. The head of the department told me there was no such thing; only New Horizons Academy had those services. You are not providing those services at this point. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) does not require a separate school; it requires some facilities. There are a lot of kids who cannot cope with the environment of a regular school, even though requirements are being met satisfactorily. I have noticed that after 2 or 3 years at this academy, kids can very satisfactorily perform in the public school system. There is something to be said for this. You could set up a school just like this for the district, but you have not done it.
Dr. Kadlub:
I am not the expert; I think there are other experts here who are not from my district. You are correct; there are disabilities for which the district receives no funding to provide programs. In instances where there is a recognized disability for which we cannot provide a program, we provide placements for those students. Some of the students are even placed out-of-state. If programs exist, they are not recognized and we receive no funding for them; obviously, we have no capacity to implement them.
Frank Brusa, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Administrators, Clark County Association of School Administrators:
We oppose the bill because of the loss of revenue to local school districts. We also have a concern about private school oversight. Will the same laws presently in effect for public schools apply to private schools offering services to children with disabilities? I do not know how that will work.
Doug Whitener, Director, Student Support Services, Washoe County School District:
I oversee special education. One option parents have involves litigation. If parents in Washoe County feel their children are not receiving a free and appropriate education, notify the school, give the school an opportunity to address the issues and feel the district did not address them, they have a federal right to enroll their child in a private school and seek reimbursement from the school district. It is a fairly common practice on the east coast, but not as common on the west coast because there are not as many licensed private schools.
I will also point out every child with a disability in the state has a right to a free and appropriate education and every school district under the auspices of the State has to provide that. If a child could not receive appropriate services in Washoe County, we would seek State assistance. The State will ask whether we have exhausted all our options.
We are in opposition to this bill; some of the reasons have already been stated. We are concerned about oversight of private schools. I understand there is a similar proposal for IDEA being considered by legislators in Washington, D.C.; oversight is a concern there also. If any school receives federal money, it has a responsibility to provide a free and appropriate education to any child with disabilities. With this bill, I am assuming the free and appropriate education requirements will extend to the private schools with the scholarships. The question then becomes who is going to do oversight and training. We are very much in favor of alternatives for kids with disabilities. If there was legislation that did offer better services for kids with disabilities, we would be in complete support of it.
I would like to discuss Washoe County’s charter school experiences. I believe we have more charter schools than any other district in the state. When a school signs its charter, it agrees to adhere to all federal and state laws regarding children with disabilities. We have had a very substantial problem with special education children in those schools. I do not want to blame those schools; I think we share in the blame because we trained them and explained what they had to do. The charter schools have struggled and we are increasing the amount of training. I think it will be 3 or 4 years before we get to a point where “free and appropriate education” is understood by charter schools. For example, our compliance rate in the charter schools in Washoe County was about 50 percent last year. The State will not allow that to continue.
Are we doing the right thing for kids with disabilities by approving this legislation without carefully setting up the parameters of licensure? More importantly, do private schools understand what “free and appropriate education” really means? Our biggest concern is private school oversight; another issue is how the State will decide who gets the scholarship and who does not. The law currently reads parents dissatisfied with their child’s progress; does that mean that every parent who complains that his or her child is not progressing like other students is going to get a scholarship? The State needs to develop criteria.
A third issue concerns progress at the private school. If a student wants to stay at a private school a second year, there is no progress requirement; the bill currently says the student must be “in good standing.” A standard of progress is required to apply for the scholarship, but there is no standard of progress after that.
This legislation has a fiscal impact. In Washoe County, we had difficulty assessing fiscal impact because we do not know if any private schools in our area will attempt to develop programs to serve students with disabilities. We certainly have some dissatisfied parents, which we try to minimize; we estimated 30 to 40 parents might consider this. If 40 students move to private schools, the district will lose about $280,000 in funding. However, we would not be serving those 40 kids, so the net effect might be zero.
Senator Tiffany:
The school districts mention education of disabled children is an unfunded mandate every time they come in front of us. In your district, what do you estimate the cost is to educate a disabled student?
Mr. Whitener:
The recent State report estimated the cost of educating a child with disabilities in the school district is about $10,000. Remember that 80 percent of the students are in a regular classroom; the figure is over $10,000 because you have regular education expenses combined with special education expenses.
Senator Tiffany:
I have the cost as high as $25,000; I suppose it depends on how severely disabled a child is. It seems you should be happy if an accredited school can handle special needs for the disabled; it may be able to deliver education for the per-pupil amount, which is $5279.
Mr. Whitener:
We have some children we spend $80,000 on. It probably seems we are only focused on fiscal aspects; I am concerned about the kids. I do not believe the private schools in northern Nevada are properly equipped to meet these needs. The first group of students will not be served properly. Even though I understand the point you are making about saving money, I do not know if it is the best solution for those kids.
Senator Tiffany:
For the pilot program, we would probably want to choose a county with an existing school capable of meeting these needs; maybe it would be in Clark County. Like the private sector, if there is an area of need and people feel funding is available, they will probably come.
Deborah K. Cahill, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association:
I visited New Horizons Academy; I am impressed with the program. It was very clear to me that the school has the best interest of the students in mind. The programs are very successful and the people are dedicated.
Because New Horizons is private, it is able to establish a standard of instruction and maintain it because the programs are not overwhelmed by the numbers of students who need services. There is a waiting list. The school also told me some parents have difficulty raising the tuition to keep their children in the program. When I visited, tuition averaged about $11,000. If New Horizons has a student who needs services, it is able to fully attend to that student. In the public schools, speech therapists have caseloads of 70 students. It is very difficult for public schools to be successful when the programs are completely overwhelmed. In summary, I would say give the public schools the money needed so they can do a much better job of attending to those students.
Al Bellister, Lobbyist, Nevada State Education Association:
Layer upon layer of accountability has been placed on the public schools through legislation such as the Nevada Education Reform Act (NERA) and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA). This bill takes money from public schools and gives it to private schools, and specifically states in Section 1, subsection 6, there will be no accountability. We find that troublesome. I agree with the suggestion that schools could easily convert to charter school status. The School for the Deaf is in the process of earning charter school status in the Clark County School District. We have the capability in Nevada to open charter schools and public schools to serve students with disabilities. The bottom line is we need to invest in the public schools so we can do the same type of things New Horizons Academy is doing. We would love to have class sizes of seven students; we would be bragging about our accomplishments, too.
Dr. Dowd:
This year, the tuition at New Horizons Academy is $8500. It costs us much more than that to educate each student; we make up the difference each year with fund-raisers, donations, and grants. Everyone at New Horizons respects the work the public schools do. One of the theoretical concepts of IDEA is continuum of services. If the school district cannot provide the services some students need, New Horizons is there to provide them. We are able and experienced; we have been doing this work since 1973. We know how to work with students and help them be successful. We want to support the community and the public school system by preparing these students to return to the public school system and be successful there.
Senator Raggio:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 340 and open the hearing on S.B. 341.
SENATE BILL 341: Provides for payment, under certain circumstances, of certain fees and expenses assessed against or incurred by high school pupils taking certain college courses. (BDR 34-890)
Senator Cegavske:
My remarks are included in my statement (Exhibit G). This bill encourages more of our high school graduates to go on to college, and it focuses on the shortage of teaching and nursing professionals. I also have a proposed amendment to submit to the committee (Exhibit H). Eligibility requirements are outlined in my statement. We are working with Bonanza High School and the community college to set up this program. Nevada Revised Statutes 389.160 allows a student to be enrolled in a college-level course that applies to both high school and college graduation requirements. Currently, the student pays for the course, which may exclude low-income students from participating. This bill will provide some financial assistance.
Our shortage of teachers will increase due to NCLBA’s requirement that all middle school and high school teachers must have a major in the subject they teach by 2005-2006; this will eliminate out-of-field teaching.
Daniel Tafoya, Lobbyist, Community College of Southern Nevada:
The college and Chancellor Jane Nichols support this bill with the proposed amendment.
Senator Raggio:
How will this mesh with the nursing initiative? Is this only for high school students? To whom will the appropriation be made?
Senator Cegavske:
The appropriation will be made to the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN). At the high school, we are evaluating interest in nursing. We are also investigating an arrangement that will allow the community college to use the high school laboratories for biology and chemistry classes after 3 p.m. Students will be able to take college classes during their junior and senior years that will apply to high school and college requirements; these college credits will enhance their teaching and nursing licensing.
Senator Raggio:
Are you familiar with the explanation from UCCSN in the fiscal note?
Senator Cegavske:
No, I am not.
Senator Mathews:
Many years ago, nursing studies began at the high school; you progressed from high school to a licensed practical nurse program. It was also done in the old adult education programs. The programs were successful at the time because they met a need and they were done without legislation.
Senator Raggio:
We will close the hearing on S.B. 341 and open the hearing on S.B. 376.
SENATE BILL 376: Establishes Program of Voucher Schools and provides for public school choice. (BDR 34-236)
Senator Maurice E. Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 2:
During the interim, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision concerning school vouchers. People have objected to the term “voucher,” so some states have started using the term “optional scholarship program.” The decision in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris allows students in failing schools the opportunity to use vouchers to enroll in other schools. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Cleveland voucher system did not violate the establishment clause in the U.S. Constitution. The court also stated vouchers embody and uphold NCLBA.
The Cleveland program allowed parents of students in failing schools and low‑income parents to choose between a voucher program and a school choice program. Under the provisions of S.B. 376, an eligible family may receive a voucher in the amount of the per-pupil payment from the State’s Distributive School Account or the amount of the tuition of the private school, whichever is less. For low-income families, the bill will prohibit participating private schools from charging tuition greater than the per-pupil allotment. To ensure that parents are the ones making the choice, the bill states the vouchers will be made out to parents, who will then give them to the school of their choice. This process is consistent with the procedures followed by other states using school vouchers and is important for the constitutionality of the bill.
The bill requires private schools to comply with anti-discrimination laws. Students who choose a religious school are allowed to opt out of religious classes and other activities. Private schools participating in voucher programs must submit to limited oversight by the Department of Education to ensure voucher program compliance. The bill contains all applications and certification procedures needed to make voucher schools or school choice work at this level. I hope Nevada will join Ohio, Florida, and Wisconsin in enacting a successful voucher program. I have introduced this legislation in previous sessions. I have provided an analysis of the bill (Exhibit I) and I ask for your support of S.B. 376.
Senator Raggio:
There is an opt-out provision for religious activities in Section 15.
Senator Washington:
That is correct. The provision is important for those students not wanting to participate in religious activities, and to make sure the bill is in compliance with the U.S. Constitution and the establishment clause.
Senator Raggio:
The Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce has submitted a letter in support of the bill (Exhibit J). We also have a letter from Americans United for Separation of Church and State (Exhibit K) opposing S.B. 376.
Senator Washington:
The bill narrowly defines those who can participate in the program, which includes families at or below the federal poverty level and students attending schools designated as in need of improvement for at least 3 years.
Senator Raggio:
Are participants limited to students attending a school designated as in need of improvement for at least 3 years or a low-income family, as defined in the bill?
Senator Washington:
That is correct.
Mr. Payant:
I have discussed this bill with the bishops of Nevada; they favor this legislation. Because this bill acknowledges that low-income parents should have the right of choice as well, we favor this bill.
Senator Washington:
I understand there is a fiscal note to the bill, but I have not had the opportunity to read it.
Senator Raggio:
The fiscal note from the Department of Education indicates expenses of $427,000 for fiscal year 2004-2005 and $788,000 for future biennia.
Dr. Rheault:
The first part of the fiscal note narrative explains the bill creates a number of new duties that will require additional staff to complete. It creates a voucher bureaucracy. We have to approve all the voucher schools. We have to collect
the applications for vouchers. Senate Bill 376 allows up to 10 percent of a district’s population to qualify for the vouchers; I used 5 percent of the eligible students in my example, which amounts to 19,000 students. Someone on staff has to collect the 19,000 requests for vouchers, review them, and mail them back to the parents. To account for the money going out, the department has to set up a payment schedule for all the voucher schools.
In Section 13 of the bill, a low-income family not enrolled in a school is allowed to apply; that appears to make homeschooling parents eligible to apply. Since we have 5000 eligible homeschooling parents, we think 19,000 students is a reasonable estimate for voucher requests.
I think there are some other issues we could work on with Senator Washington. Parents apply to the Department of Education for vouchers, but Section 16, subsection 1, requires the same pupils to be included in the count of apportionment for the school district. We will have to clearly indicate which students are using vouchers; otherwise, it will appear the districts have students that in reality they do not have. How will districts get those numbers?
There may be disagreement regarding the number of staff mentioned in the fiscal note. To pay for expenses, Section 16, subsection 4, allows the department to collect 1 percent of the total amount of funding sent to the voucher schools the first year, upon completion of the school year. The problem is, if we are to hire staff to make sure all the vouchers are sent out before the end of the school year, we need a State appropriation to get the program off the ground. It could be repaid at the end of the year. After the first year, the percentage drops to 0.5 percent. If 5 percent of eligible students participate, there will be enough revenue collected to meet expenses.
Senator Raggio:
The major fiscal notes are from the local governments; they are here tonight.
Dr. Rheault:
I did not show the loss of revenue to a district; I left that up to the district.
Ms. Hansen:
I would like to submit the testimony of David Schumann (Exhibit L) of the Independent American Party of Nevada to the committee. The U.S. Supreme Court let stand the decision in Wisconsin which supported the constitutionality of Milwaukee’s voucher program, which was focused on children from low‑income families. The U.S. Supreme Court also approved the use of vouchers in a Cleveland, Ohio, case; the constitutionality of vouchers appears decided.
The major opponent of vouchers is the National Education Association (NEA). The organization’s outgoing president, Bob Chase, criticized the court’s ruling in Zelman v. Simmons‑Harris; he said, “Just because the court says vouchers are constitutional does not make it right.” The other information I have provided (Exhibit M) reports NEA voted in 2000 to increase its dues by $5 a year in order to fight vouchers and other related ballot initiatives. Interestingly, the leadership does not necessarily represent the rank and file members. Page 6 reports a survey sent to association members found vouchers were ranked last in a list of ten issues; 19 percent found vouchers “very important,” while 39 percent thought the issue was “not important at all.” The position of the teachers’ union may not represent rank and file teachers; many favor choice in education because they see it benefits children. In upholding the Cleveland school voucher option, the court said it was a program of true choice.
One of the reasons this is such an important issue is because people do make choices when they have the right to choose. Parents need to have the option to provide their children with a better education, especially parents who do not have the financial means to choose private education on their own. We have to consider the needs of those who are least able to take care of themselves.
We need to find ways of creating competition with our government schools because it will improve those schools; they will rise to the occasion. We know we have one of the finest university systems in the world because people come from all over the world to attend our government and private universities. Competition improves the government universities as well as the private universities. Mr. Schumann’s testimony (Exhibit L) indicates instituting a voucher program can ultimately save money. We wholeheartedly and enthusiastically endorse this.
Senator Raggio:
Who is David Schumann?
Ms. Hansen:
He is a good friend of mine representing the Independent American Party of Nevada. He is from California; he points out Nevada is adopting many of the same problems California has.
Bonnie L. Parnell, Lobbyist, League of Women Voters Nevada, Nevada PTA:
The Nevada chapters and the national organizations of both groups I represent oppose diverting scarce resources from public schools to subsidize private and religious schools. Such schools are not subject to any oversight from elected officials; they are allowed to set their own tuition rates and have exclusive admission policies. Often, they deny admission to special education students. Implementation of voucher programs sends a clear message that we are giving up on public education. Undoubtedly, vouchers would help some students, but the glory of the American system of public education is that it is for all children, regardless of their academic talents, ability to pay a fee, or their religious beliefs. This policy of inclusiveness has made our public school system the backbone of our American democracy. Senator Raggio has led this State towards accountability through NERA. We are attempting to make Nevada’s public schools the best for all children.
Senator Raggio:
Yesterday, the Assembly decided to do away with NERA. It does not want any proficiency testing in high schools. I think the bill also did away with the Commission on Academic Standards. I am beginning to wonder if NERA is falling apart already. I do not think the bill will pass in the Senate.
Ms. Parnell:
Speaking as a former school teacher and as someone who feels strongly about the public school system and its potential, I would say we are on the right path. I support accountability. To repeat, both groups I represent oppose vouchers.
Mr. Bellister:
We are opposed to S.B. 376 specifically and to vouchers in general. Previous speakers talked about NEA’s position; we have always endorsed public school choice and we continue to do so. This bill is not about competition; we already have competition in the public school system with the creation of charter schools and magnet schools. There have always been private schools. What concerns us about this bill is accountability; public schools have NERA and NCLBA. We have a system that seems eager to label all of our schools as in need of improvement or failing, yet we are not providing the resources to make our schools a success. We are undermining the public confidence in public schools with bills like NCLBA. I also question the fiscal note on this bill; Section 13 appears to include youngsters who are homeschooled or enrolled in a private school.
Senator Raggio:
That was Dr. Rheault’s interpretation.
Mr. Bellister:
There are several thousand homeschooled youngsters who will become eligible for vouchers. I estimate 10 percent of the homeschool population in Nevada will meet the definition of a low-income family, which will add about $2 million to the fiscal note just for the homeschool population. I am not sure how to interpret Section 13(b)(2)(II); if this bill passes, will students currently enrolled in a private school be eligible for vouchers? If so, it will also add a significant amount to the fiscal impact.
Senator Raggio:
Will they have to meet the family income qualifications?
Mr. Bellister:
Yes. If children currently enrolled in private school are eligible, and you assume 10 percent of them meet family income qualifications, it will have a significant impact. The bottom line is, rather than taking money away from the public schools, we urge you to invest in public education. Take these resources and invest in school technology, smaller class sizes, and alternative placement for disruptive students; give us a longer day, a longer year, and mentor teacher programs. Give us the things we have been asking for year after year.
Dr. Kadlub:
I agree with the previous statements regarding the voucher portion of the bill. I would like to comment on the sections outlining provisions for choice, beginning at Section 31. My district is not opposed to choice by any means, but it is opposed to what is presented in S.B. 376. Clark County School District (CCSD) has a regulation which outlines approximately a dozen different ways students can attend schools other than those for which they are zoned; those mechanisms include zone variances, magnet options, administrative transfers, choice provisions outlined in NCLBA’s special education options, and academic program options. Unlike the provisions in S.B. 376, the CCSD process considers a number of factors, including impact on diversity of the sending and receiving schools, current projected enrollment, space availability, and staffing. Under CCSD’s present system, almost 26,000 students, more than one-tenth of our enrollment, are attending schools other than those for which they are zoned.
My district also has concerns regarding the mechanics of the proposal. The timing of applications and approvals could cause problems in terms of staffing and overcrowding, determining whether a school will operate 9 months or year‑round, compliance with provisions of the Nevada Interscholastic Activities Association, and students enrolling in private schools for athletic purposes. Fundamentally, CCSD feels zoning is a matter best left to each district. My district feels the current policy accommodates as many requests as is practically possible, particularly in light of the high transiency rate of our students and an annual enrollment growth of 10,000 to 15,000 students. The district does support flexibility in school assignments, but it does not believe this legislation will significantly improve the current situation.
Senator Raggio:
Your fiscal note is based on 10 percent of eligible students not attending the district school. How was the $36 million computed?
Dr. Kadlub:
I believe that is in reference to the voucher portion of the bill.
Senator Raggio:
Does that mean 10 percent of the students in the entire district will request a voucher?
Dr. Kadlub:
I believe that is the basis for the calculation.
Senator Raggio:
Is that based on the eligibility criteria?
Dr. Kadlub:
I believe it is based on the 10 percent believed to be eligible.
Senator Raggio:
Will those be students in schools designated as in need of improvement and from low-income families? Could you get us an analysis of the calculation? All we have is a line item.
Dr. Kadlub:
Essentially, those are our concerns. I agree with the voucher concerns; I also wanted to point out we do have choice provisions within the district that are serving one-tenth of our student population.
Dorothy L. Merrill, Lobbyist, Senior Director, Public Policy, Accountability and Assessment, Washoe County School District:
My remarks are contained in my written statement (Exhibit N). The board of trustees and the superintendent are opposed to S.B. 376. For purposes of clarification, all of the public schools in Milwaukee were in need of improvement. The system of accountability included the private schools; the private schools were not in need of improvement. There were no other public school options for those children. This issue in this single situation was persuasive to the U.S. Supreme Court.
We are in support of Dr. Kadlub’s testimony concerning choice. In the many debates surrounding public education, no issue seems to polarize the discussion more than the subject of vouchers. No one really knows how vouchers might work for large numbers of Nevada’s school-aged children. In a democracy, public policy gives shape to decisions about the use of tax dollars and accountability for results. The voucher program proposed in S.B. 376 comes without any of the accountability demanded of publicly-funded institutions. Private schools accepting vouchers do not have to comply with many of the regulations governing public schools. To turn over funds from public schools to private ventures operating outside the domain of public accountability creates an incentive for those who want to flee the tougher accountability standards that exist in the public schools.
Senate Bill 376 contains at least 15 pages describing how a private school may become a voucher school and receive funding. We cannot find one word in this proposal about accountability expectations, requirements to teach Nevada’s academic content, performance standards, academic achievement, student attendance, or funding for instruction. We do find that this void speaks for itself. The trustees and superintendent of the Washoe County School District strongly urge you to vote against this bill; its proposals are simply bad public policy.
Randy Robison, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of School Boards:
We also oppose S.B. 376.
Senator Washington:
I am a realist and an optimist; I believe good things will find their way through sooner or later. The reality is, I understand this bill has very little chance of passing. I would like to respond to a few issues. There are oversight and accountability provisions in the bill; private schools wishing to participate in the voucher program have to comply. Schools not participating have to comply with state law concerning academic standards and accountability. For the most part, private school tuition is a lot less than the distributive school account per‑pupil amount; the average tuition is about $2500. Private schools do not have to be concerned about facilities, high teacher salaries, and maintenance. The bill also provides a means to opt out of religious activities.
Mr. Bellister mentioned competition already exists in the educational system. The system, however, sets the rules for competing for educational dollars. The voucher system gives private institutions an opportunity to compete and provide options to parents who are caught in a quagmire and cannot get out. Resources, meaning funds, have always been the issue when it comes to vouchers. The resource that sometimes gets neglected is the child attending a school designated as in need of improvement or not in compliance with state law. Those children get left behind; they are often from impoverished families or the inner city. This at least gives them the chance to seek educational opportunities that will enhance their lives and make their dreams a reality.
Mr. Bellister also mentioned NCLBA, which is an unfunded mandate. A lot of money is tied up in NCLBA, especially in special education. Grants are available to districts and states that comply with NCLBA. The students addressed in the fiscal note are likely to drop out of school if we do not help them early; they will become statistics in our correctional institutions.
To correct a statement regarding homeschoolers, most students who are impoverished or below the federal poverty level are not homeschooled. They cannot afford it unless they have some other financial assistance. I have heard the districts would like to get homeschoolers back into the public schools because they do not comport.
Finally, teachers working in private schools do not receive the large salaries of teachers in the public system; they work for less money, but they have a love of teaching and children. They work long hours with fewer resources for less pay and do a tremendous job. I would dare say a private school student would fare better in a comparison with a public school student. I think the accountability should be, when a child graduates from high school, is he or she able to get a job or pursue a career? The accountability is what kind of product we produce. If choice and vouchers give us the best product, I would urge the committee to pass S.B 376.
Senator Raggio:
Since there is no other business, this committee is adjourned at 5:44 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Denise Davis,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator William J. Raggio, Chairman
DATE: